The use of biologics in professional and Olympic sport: a scoping review protocol

Multiligament knee injury (MLKI): an expert consensus statement on nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKIs) represent a broad spectrum of pathology with potentially devastating consequences. Currently, disagreement in the terminology, diagnosis and treatment of these injuries limits clinical care and research. This study aimed to develop consensus on the nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation strategies for patients with MLKI, while identifying important research priorities for further study. An international consensus process was conducted using validated Delphi methodology in line with British Journal of Sports Medicine guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel of 39 members from 14 countries, completed 3 rounds of online surveys exploring aspects of nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and future research priorities. Levels of agreement (LoA) with each statement were rated anonymously on a 5-point Likert scale, with experts encouraged to suggest modifications or additional statements. LoA for consensus in the final round were defined 'a priori' if >75% of respondents agreed and fewer than 10% disagreed, and dissenting viewpoints were recorded and discussed. After three Delphi rounds, 50 items (92.6%) reached consensus. Key statements that reached consensus within nomenclature included a clear definition for MLKI (LoA 97.4%) and the need for an updated MLKI classification system that classifies injury mechanism, extent of non-ligamentous structures injured and the presence or absence of dislocation. Within diagnosis, consensus was reached that there should be a low threshold for assessment with CT angiography for MLKI within a high-energy context and for certain injury patterns including bicruciate and PLC injuries (LoA 89.7%). The value of stress radiography or intraoperative fluoroscopy also reached consensus (LoA 89.7%). Within treatment, it was generally agreed that existing literature generally favours operative management of MLKI, particularly for young patients (LoA 100%), and that single-stage surgery should be performed whenever possible (LoA 92.3%). This consensus statement will facilitate clinical communication in MLKI, the care of these patients and future research within MLKI.

Platelet-rich plasma intra-articular knee injections from open preparation techniques do not pose a higher risk of joint infection: A systematic review of 91 randomized controlled trials and 5914 injections

Purpose

To compare the infection rate of intraarticular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) knee injections between open and closed techniques in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the last decade.

Methods

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, PubMed, Scopus and Virtual Health Library were accessed in October 2022 using the terms 'platelet-rich plasma', 'PRP', 'knee' and 'tibiofemoral' alone and in combination with Boolean operators AND/OR. RCTs published during the last 10 years evaluating PRP intra-articular knee injections were considered eligible. Studies were excluded if the kit/preparation technique was not described. Data were presented using individual studies' absolute values, totals, and pooled percentages. Publication bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool.

Results

Ninety-one studies met the predetermined eligibility criteria. Forty-one implemented a closed technique, while 50 were open. All studies implementing a closed technique disclosed their commercial kits. Only 16 studies (17.58%) failed to report joint infections. Among the studies reporting joint infections as outcomes, 30 implemented a closed technique with 1195 patients, 1921 intra-articular knee injections and 95.44% of patient follow-up. On the other hand, 45 of them implemented an open technique with 2290 patients, 3993 intra-articular knee injections and 97.07% of patient follow-up. No patient had a joint infection among the included studies. Thirty-three studies prepared their PRP in controlled environments (36.26%). Most studies did not report where the preparation occurred (48.35%). Only twelve studies disclosed using laminar flow during preparation (13.19%). The infection rate for both techniques was 0 per 1000 knee injections.

Conclusion

Open PRP preparation techniques do not pose a higher risk of joint infection and can lower manufacturing costs when appropriate facilities are available. However, PRP preparation setting and laminar flow implementation data are deficient, and minimal requirements for good manufacturing practices demand further studies while adhering to local and regional regulations.

Level of Evidence

Level I, systematic review of RCTs.

Review of Dohan Eherenfest et al. (2009) on "Classification of platelet concentrates: From pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF)"

This classic discusses the original publication of Dohan Eherenfest et al. on "Classification of platelet concentrates: from pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF)", in which the authors propose four categories of platelet concentrates depending on their leucocyte and fibrin content (P-PRP, leucocyte- and platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP), pure platelet-rich fibrin (P-PRF), and L-PRF) to group a "jungle" of products in which the term platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was used indistinctly. They were able to identify common factors such as: (1) the use of anticoagulants and immediate centrifugation of the blood after its collection; (2) most preparation techniques allowed platelet concentrate preparation within an hour; (3) the centrifugation aimed to separate the blood in layers that would allow the extraction of specific fractions; and (4) the product was activated with thrombin or calcium chloride. The reviewed manuscript has been listed among the most cited PRP articles in regenerative medicine, with more than 800 citations, driving current scientific research and clinical practise by categorising L-PRP and P-PRP (now, leucocyte-poor PRP). The classification has also opened the door to understanding intrinsic biological mechanisms between platelets, leukocytes, fibrin, and growth factors, which will later be considered for studying the proliferation and differentiation of cells in different tissues affected by PRP. Since the initial classification of platelet concentrates, several other classification systems have been proposed and published in the current literature such as platelet, activation, white blood cell (PAW), Mishra, platelet, leucocyte, red blood cells, and activation (PLRA), dose of platelet, efficiency, purity, and activation (DEPA), method, activation, red blood cells, spin, platelets, image guidance, leukocytes, and light activation (MARSPILL), etc. These classifications have identified important aspects of PRP that affect the biological composition and, ultimately, the indications and outcomes. To date, there is still a lack of standardisation in sample preparation, cohort heterogeneity, and incomplete reporting of sample preparation utilised, leading to a lack of clarity and challenging researchers and clinicians.

The Use of Biologics in NFL Athletes: An Expert Consensus of NFL Team Physicians

Background

There is a lack of published information outlining the use of biologics in National Football League (NFL) athletes and limited data to guide biologic treatment strategies.

Purpose

To develop a consensus on the use of biologics among NFL team physicians.

Study Design

Consensus statement.

Methods

A working group of 6 experts convened a consensus process involving NFL team physicians using validated Delphi methodology. Physicians from 32 NFL teams as well as NFL London were invited to take part. This iterative process was used to define statements on the use of biologics in NFL athletes. A recent scoping review exploring biologics in professional athletes was used to inform the first of 3 rounds of surveys, with statements considered under 7 headings: biologics in general, challenges of treating NFL athletes, terminology/nomenclature, autologous blood products, cell-based therapies, guidance for NFL team physicians, and biologic research in the NFL. In addition to rating agreement, experts were encouraged to propose further items or modifications. Predefined criteria were used to refine item lists after each survey. For a consensus within the final round, defined a priori, items were included in the final information set if a minimum of 75% of respondents agreed and fewer than 10% disagreed.

Results

Physicians from 26 NFL teams and NFL London responded to the initial invitation to participate in the Delphi process; 88.9% of participating team physicians completed the round 1 survey, with response rates of 87.5% in round 2 and 95.2% in round 3. After 3 rounds, 47 statements reached a consensus. A consensus was achieved that platelet-rich plasma has a positive impact on patellar tendinopathy and on symptoms in early osteoarthritis but not for other indications. NFL team physicians agreed that while cell therapies have the potential to improve symptoms, the misrepresentation of uncharacterized preparations as "stem cells" has contributed to the widespread use of unproven therapies.

Conclusion

This study established an expert consensus on 47 statements relating to the use of biologics in NFL athletes. In addition to providing clinical guidance for the use of biologics in NFL athletes, this study identified key areas for future focus including the development of athlete education materials.

Diagnosis and treatment strategies of the multiligament injured knee

Aims

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are devastating injuries that can result in significant morbidity and time away from sport. There remains considerable variation in strategies employed for investigation, indications for operative intervention, outcome reporting, and rehabilitation following these injuries. At present no study has yet provided a comprehensive overview evaluating the extent, range, and overall summary of the published literature pertaining to MLKI. Our aim is to perform a methodologically rigorous scoping review, mapping the literature evaluating the diagnosis and management of MLKI.

Methods

This scoping review will address three aims: firstly, to map the current extent and nature of evidence for diagnosis and management of MLKI; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings to practitioners; and thirdly, to highlight gaps in current literature. A three-step search strategy as described by accepted methodology will be employed to identify peer-reviewed literature including reviews, technical notes, opinion pieces, and original research. An initial limited search will be performed to determine suitable search terms, followed by an expanded search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science). Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion.

Dissemination

We will map key concepts and evidence, and disseminate existing research findings to the wider orthopaedic and sports medicine community, through both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature, and conference and in-person communications. We will highlight gaps in the current literature and determine future priorities for further research. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):894–897.

Biologics in professional and Olympic sport: a scoping review

AIMS

The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate the use of biologic therapies in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O'Malley frameworks were followed. A three-step search strategy identified relevant published primary and secondary studies, as well as grey literature. The identified studies were screened with criteria for inclusion comprising clinical studies evaluating the use of biologic therapies in professional and Olympic athletes, systematic reviews, consensus statements, and conference proceedings. Data were extracted using a standardized tool to form a descriptive analysis and a thematic summary.

RESULTS

A total of 202 studies were initially identified, and 35 met criteria for the scoping review; 33 (94.3%) were published within the last eight years, and 18 (51.4%) originated from the USA. Platelet rich plasma was the most studied biologic therapy, being evaluated in 33 (94.3%) studies. Ulnar collateral ligament and hamstring injuries were the conditions most studied (nine (25.7%) studies and seven (20.0%) studies, respectively). Athletes most frequently participated in baseball, soccer, and American football. Only two (5.7%) studies were level 1 evidence, with interpretation and comparison between studies limited by the variations in the injury profile, biologic preparations, and rehabilitation protocols.

CONCLUSION

There is diverse use of biologic therapies in the management of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes. There is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support the widespread use of biologic therapies in athletes. Further research priorities include the development of condition/pathology-specific preparations of biologic therapies, and of outcome measures and imaging modalities sufficiently sensitive to detect differences in outcomes, should they exist. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1189-1196.